This is the second part of the Feedback in Translation series. You can find Part 1, “What to Expect,” here.

By Anna Livermore

The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing.

– HenryFord

When was the last time you received feedback on your work? Were you happy with it? Did it sting a little? Did you learn anything from it?

Receiving feedback from clients is important by all accounts, especially as detailed review of one’s work can be hard to come by. The fact that an agency or a direct client takes time to provide feedback (that is more than just a numerical value on an arbitrary scale) is a great sign: it means that they value the work you do and are willing to invest in making the relationship more productive[i].

However, receiving feedback is just the beginning. What really matters is how we respond to it and what we learn from it.

Being able to respond to feedback constructively is a key skill for building trust and rapport with clients[ii] and coworkers, if you hold an in-house position. If they know they can count on your cooperation in achieving the quality of translation that they require, you are more likely to receive repeat business and referrals.

One of the main difficulties with processing feedback is the fact that in translation it usually entails finding faults in the target text and informing the translator of those faults. One look at the ProZ[iii] contest supports that: the number of mistakes (dislikes) fellow translators highlight in translations submitted to the competition by far exceeds the number of merit points (likes) those entries receive. There is a reason for that: our job demands perfectionism. And although research proves that receiving negative feedback is critical to improving one’s performance, it also suggests that dealing with negative feedback can be difficult, because initially people tend to feel defensive[iv].

It does take some effort not to take it personally but to remember that feedback is not an attack on your skills. It is worth remembering that the intention of any editor is (or should be) to improve the target text, to work on its readability and style, iron out mistakes that slipped through your net and to identify any localization issues.

It is therefore important not to rush your response, but to read everything carefully and consider the nature of the corrections and why an editor would make them. Some corrections will be obvious (grammar, style, register, word choice), others might contradict what you thought was the right solution, and then, of course, there is the grey area of preferential corrections that do not improve the quality of a target text but “sound better” to the reviewer.

Responding to feedback constructively does not mean agreeing to everything that a client says and corrects. A lot of the time feedback from agency and direct client reviewers will be valid: they might insist on using specific terminology that conveys their market expertise, or they might feel that a change of register would better suit their brand identity. But there will be times when you should defend your choices. Some inexperienced direct clients might question the target text from a position of translation and localization ignorance: for instance, insisting that every word in a title is capitalized in a Russian target text, which is not the norm, or making corrections to a translation based on the logic “but I saw it on other photographers’ websites written this way (albeit completely ungrammatical).” Cases like this are a great opportunity to establish yourself as an expert in what you do and provide valuable advice to your clients.

If you do challenge any corrections made to your translation, make sure you can back everything upwith reputable sources (corpora, references to style guides and grammar manuals etc.). Personally, I also try to keep it simple: when discussing feedback with direct clients who wouldn’t know their gerund from their participle, I aim to uncomplicate the information for them and put it in terms that they can relate to. Doing so can be challenging sometimes, but will certainly earn you some extra points with clients.

And of course, don’t forget that the process of deconstructing feedback and analyzing it for the purpose of responding to a client will benefit you in other ways too:

The most obvious reason is that the analysis enables us to perfect our translation skills. It is equivalent to satisfaction surveys other service providers send out to try and understand how well they are doing in addressing their customers’ needs. Here is a little trick I developed after I took my first ATA Certification practice test: I would analyze feedback from every test translation and project I completed and categorize every mistake according to the ATA Certification exam rubric[v]. This gave me an insight into areas I could improve, allowing me to focus my efforts.

Other reasons include understanding the tone of voice, style and terminology different clients prefer and expect in future assignments to ensure the consistency of how their brand is presented. We do not have a crystal ball, and even the most thorough project brief won’t always cover everything.

And finally, the type of feedback received speaks volumes about the client, where translation fits into their business and how much they value it—information that can be useful when analyzing your client database.

Anna Livermore is an English>Russian and German>Russian translator and former marketing specialist. With a linguistics degree from the Oxford Brookes University and a Professional Diploma in marketing, she came to specialize in translating marketing materials, corporate communications, website content and various components of SEM. She is a member of the Slavic Languages Division’s Social Media team. Contact: livermore.translations@gmail.com

Whether you crave it or dread it, feedback is an essential part of the translation process (at least it should be). Depending on who you work for—agencies or direct clients—feedback can take a variety of forms. But even within those two categories the level of detail will vary.

And let’s not forget the fact that different types of materials require different approaches to assessing the quality. Rubric style tables and spreadsheets with predefined categories are perfectly suited for working with legal and medical documents where accuracy is paramount, but when it comes to assessing the quality of marketing translation, they can be misleading. Most marketing texts require a degree of linguistic and cultural adaptation, which could be viewed as mistakes within the rigid constraints of such forms. For instance, when translating English-speaking seasonal promotions into Russian, one has to modify all references to Christmas (firstly, in Russia it is not celebrated in December and, secondly, it does not have the same commercial impact on the Russian audience).

Agencies that adapt rigorous quality assessment are more likely to give detailed feedback compiled by an experienced professional editor. This might take a shape of an evaluation sheet, which clearly highlights all mistakes and their category (e.g. style, register, syntax, critical mistranslation etc.) or a Word file with comments, explaining all corrections. This type of feedback is greatly beneficial for both agencies and translators. It enables the former to assess the translation quality and hence decide whether to assign a particular translator future projects. The latter receives an important overview of areas that could be improved. And of course, there is the added benefit of providing clear, structured, documented comments on the quality of work submitted in case of any disputes.

This is, however, a time-consuming task, and under the constraints of tight deadlines, competing prices and a typically high turnover of PMs, some agencies choose to resort to a simpler system of rubric tables or even asking a reviewer to assign the quality of translation a numerical value between 1 and 10. Some agencies choose to dispense with reviewing translations and providing feedback altogether.

Similarly, feedback from direct clients tends to vary in quality. On one end of the spectrum, I have had clients who have a bilingual editor in house checking all the translations and giving feedback on inaccuracies, suggesting alternatives or trying to clarify localization issues. On the other end of the spectrum are those clients who accept and use translations as they come and have no processes in place to check their quality.

In between those two extremes are clients who choose to hire an editor in addition to a translator, and those who use online translation tools and back translation to spot check the final product (and who then panic when Google Translate produces a masterpiece like “deny the witches of motherhood and tours” as a back translation for a perfectly sound sentence in Russian—true story, by the way).

In general, direct clients appreciate receiving translations that do not require additional editing, especially if they do not have any in-house expertise in the language pair in question or are unaware of this step in the QA process. It is therefore beneficial for freelance translators to work with a trusted reviewer: not only does it add value to the service you deliver, but also provides you with valuable feedback that allows you to continue to hone your craft.

The areas that direct clients address in their feedback provide an interesting insight into what they value most. I found that direct clients are more likely to comment first on elements of their overall translation experience, such as work ethics, handling projects and offering helpful localization advice or tips on best practices, and then they turn to linguistic intricacies.

Despite such a wide spectrum of approaches to providing feedback amongst agencies and direct clients, I could not help but detect certain trends. Most agencies share a relative impartiality towards content and a focus on accuracy. Direct clients, on the other hand, tend to focus more on translation impact: nuances of meaning, tone of voice, copy sounding more interesting and engaging.

Receiving feedback on your work is critical. In her blog post How to ask for client feedback, Carolyn Yohn highlights the importance of asking for feedback and names some of the reasons to do that: it could help you create a better relationship with a PM or benchmark the quality of your work.

Feedback in translation has been covered before, although not as extensively as most other industry topics. Here are some helpful links for further reading:

Coming soon in Part 2: the challenges of responding constructively to feedback and solutions to try.

Anna Livermore is an English>Russian and German>Russian translator and former marketing specialist. With a linguistics degree from the Oxford Brookes University and a Professional Diploma in marketing, she came to specialize in translating marketing materials, corporate communications, website content and various components of SEM. She is a member of the Slavic Languages Division’s Social Media team. Contact: livermore.translations@gmail.com